State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager,Life Insurance ... vs Smt.Kerabai Shankar Kamthevad, And ... on 25 August, 2010
1 F.A.No. :956/2006
Date of filing:17.08.2010
Date of order:25.08.2010
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
F.A. NO.: 956 OF 2006
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. :428 OF 2003
DISTRICT FORUM :NANDED.
The Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Degloor Branch,
95-D above Harsh Technical High School,
Degloor,
Dist.Nanded.
Through its Zonal Office,
Yogakshema, 2nd floor,
Jeevan Bima Marg,
Mumbai 400 021. ...APPELLANTS
(Org.Opponents)
VERSUS
1. Smt.Kerabai Shankar Kamthevad,
2. Shri.Sanjay Shankar Kamthevad,
3. Kamlabai Shankar Kamthevad,
4. Babybai Shankar Kamthevad,
5. Prakash Shankar Kamthevad,
All residing at Khandoba Gali,
Mukhed, Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded.
6. Chief Officer,
Municipal Corporation, Mukhed,
Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS
(No.1 to 5-Org.Complainants,
No.6-Org.Opp.No.6)
Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
2 F.A.No. :956/2006
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Smt.Madhubala Gangwal for appellant.
O R A L O R D E R
Per Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. The present appeal is filed by LIC of India against the judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 in complaint case No.428/03 passed by District Forum,Nanded.
2. Respondents`/Org.Complainants case before the Forum is that, husband of respondent No.1 and father of respondent No.2 to 5 deceased Shankar Kamthevad had obtained 'New Janraksha Plan With Profit With Accident Benefit' policy under table-term 91-16 for sum assured of Rs.50,000/- for the period 28.11.2001 to 28.11.2017 under salary savings scheme. It is contended that he was serving as sweeper with respondent No.6. It is contended that he died on 14.1.2003. Respondents being legal heirs submitted the claim before LIC. Claim was repudiated on the grounds "that they have received the premium upto July 2002, thereafter till his death premiums were not received, the policy was in lapsed condition". Thus they approached the Forum.
3. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. Appellant tried to justify that they have rightly repudiated the claim as policy was in lapsed condition as premiums from August 2002 till death of insured were not received by them.
4. The Forum below after going through the papers and hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs.50,000/- towards policy amount and Rs.50,000/- towards bonus amount with 3 F.A.No. :956/2006 interest @ 6% p.a. from 09.10.2003. Forum also directed appellant to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Forum,Nanded Life Insurance Corporation of India came in appeal.
6. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents. Learned counsel Smt.Madhubala Gangwal appeared on behalf of appellants. Written note of argument is received from respondent No.1 to
5. None appeared on behalf of respondent No.6. We heard learned counsel Smt.Gangwal for appellants and perused the written notes of arguments received from respondents. There is no dispute that deceased Shankar Kamthevad was serving as Sweeper with the respondent No.6. There is also no dispute that he had obtained 'New Janraksha Plan With Profit With Accident Benefit' for the period 28.11.2001 to 28.11.2017. There is also no dispute that he died on 14.1.2003. Policy was under
salary savings scheme. Under salary savings scheme appellants authorized employer to deduct the monthly premiums from the monthly salary and to remit the same to them. In the instant case, it is the contention of appellants that they did not receive the premiums from August 2002 till death of insured. It was the responsibility of the employer to deduct and remit the premium from monthly salary. Under salary savings scheme no individual premium notice is to be sent by LIC to any employee and no receipt is to be given to him for the premium received.
7. In 'Chairman, LIC of India and others -Vs- Rajiv Kumar Bhaskar's case, the Hon`ble Apex Court has observed in para 33 as ;4 F.A.No. :956/2006
"33. In terms of the scheme, significantly the employee for all transactions was required to contact his employer only. In view of our findings aforementioned, the Corporation, thus, cannot be permitted to take a different stand so as to make the employee suffer the consequences emanating from the default on the part of the employer. If for some reasons, the employer is unable to pay the salary to the employees, as for example, its financial constraints, the employee may be held to have a legitimate expectation to the effect that his employer would at least comply with its solemn obligations. Such obligations having been undertaken to be performed by the employer at the behest of the Corporation as its agent having the implied authority therefore, the Corporation cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong as also the wrong of its agent. In any event, the employer was obligated to inform the employee that for some reason, he is not in a position to perform his obligation whereupon the latter could have paid the premium directly to the appellant herein".
8. In the instant case, no record about non-receipt of premiums has been given by appellant to the deceased in his life time. Even it is not the case of employer that they had informed employee to make arrangement about premiums for payment directly to the appellant. Forum has rightly considered this aspects and rightly relied on the ratio in 'Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking -Vs- Basanti Devi', 1999 CCJ 1465(SC)
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Forum erred in granting bonus of Rs.50,000/-. Learned counsel submitted that it is inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the policy. She submitted that policy had run only for 9 months. Insured died on 14.1.2003 5 F.A.No. :956/2006 whereas policy was to commence from 28.11.2001. Forum granted bonus as if policy was in force for the period mentioned in the policy. Forum erred in granting bonus to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. LIC is liable to pay bonus for the period for which policy was in existence. In that respect we are inclined to quash and modify the order. We pass the following order.
O R D E R 1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Appellant to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- and bonus as per rules with interest @ 6% p.a. from 09.10.2003.
3. Rest of the order is maintained as it is.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Pronounced and dictated in the open court.
6. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh,
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Mane